as someone with aspergers themselves, i do not enjoy seeing it used as an insult.
there are many terms that can be used to describe asshats without diagnosing them with, and thereby demonizing, mental disorders.

I hope I didn't do anything wrong. I don't like it when people use aspergers in a derogatory fashion either._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

Well if you think this has any barrings then yes, I'll put it out in the open.

April 9th was my birthday, it was also the day I found out my grandmother had Pancreatic Cancer with 1-3 months to live, and my mother may have Congestive Heart Failure. From that time till May 1st I was taking care and living with my grandmother. I say till then, because on that day she died.

Both of these women gave me my views on Feminism, and is the reason I disagree with most of these views I see here on Sinfest. Maybe I'm just being extra defensive about these views because of this.

Just keep in mind that we've been burnt before by people who act like dicks and then blame their behaviour on various brain chemistry abnormalities, disorders, illnesses, and sick/dying/dead loved ones. By a fucking moron all you like, but as soon as you crash a dodge viper we may need to have serious words._________________Once, at a local NOW meeting where I was the only male among about a dozen women, a feminism trivia contest was held. I came in third.

Just keep in mind that we've been burnt before by people who act like dicks and then blame their behaviour on various brain chemistry abnormalities, disorders, illnesses, and sick/dying/dead loved ones. By a fucking moron all you like, but as soon as you crash a dodge viper we may need to have serious words.

More or less agree. In my view, human behaviour is bound by physical causalities either way, so in the end, people who are unpleasant will always have a reason why they are unpleasant. I don't care. If you're causing me sadness/annoyance/pain, I care not why you do it, I only care that you stop.

You expect men to be 'ahem' a MAN enough to ask you out the minute we find you attractive. Apparantly anyone who has low self esteem or want's to first study your habits and see if you have anything in common, (or to surprise and impress you ), to you, are stalkers.

Actually, very few would consider being shy/having low self-esteem to classify one as a stalker unless you're just "shyly" staring at her chest when she's not looking or you shyly follow her INCESSANTLY to the point it BECOMES creepy. However, it's not going to be uncommon for some women to feel the person is creepily staring at them, as the amount of men doing that type of over-zealous gazing has caused them to believe it's just another guy being creepy. It's still the right of the woman to interpret you staring as creepy if it comes off that way to her.

But the truth is, many people MAKE themselves to look more like creepers when they're being shy. It's similar to a behavior I developed in early High School. I tried to act nonchalant and detached from people to cover up for that fact that I was self-conscious. I thought it'd just make me look confident in myself. But instead it had a big side effect. People thought I was being cocky like I didn't WANT people to talk to me, like I thought I was above everyone. A lot of men don't realize that in being shy, they're trying to act like they're not, so when they keep looking, the only thing the girl CAN interpret is that you're just creepily gazing at her.

But the comics in question I believe you were talking about that started this had nothing to do with someone being shy anyway! http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4620
It was straight up Devil-Slick leering at someone. Even if it wasn't, it'd be a case of what I mentioned above, where if the guy is covering up for himself but he still appears to the woman to be creepily leering.

But on another note, I am sorry to hear about your family problems. My condolences._________________

Just keep in mind that we've been burnt before by people who act like dicks and then blame their behaviour on various brain chemistry abnormalities, disorders, illnesses, and sick/dying/dead loved ones. By a fucking moron all you like, but as soon as you crash a dodge viper we may need to have serious words.

More or less agree. In my view, human behaviour is bound by physical causalities either way, so in the end, people who are unpleasant will always have a reason why they are unpleasant. I don't care. If you're causing me sadness/annoyance/pain, I care not why you do it, I only care that you stop.

Same here. If this is not some kind of tirn-around point, then this is really the last time I try working with you._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

Just keep in mind that we've been burnt before by people who act like dicks and then blame their behaviour on various brain chemistry abnormalities, disorders, illnesses, and sick/dying/dead loved ones. By a fucking moron all you like, but as soon as you crash a dodge viper we may need to have serious words.

More or less agree. In my view, human behaviour is bound by physical causalities either way, so in the end, people who are unpleasant will always have a reason why they are unpleasant. I don't care. If you're causing me sadness/annoyance/pain, I care not why you do it, I only care that you stop.

It's worse when they hide behind something, I think, because it ruins things for everyone else. :\_________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

April 9th was my birthday, it was also the day I found out my grandmother had Pancreatic Cancer with 1-3 months to live, and my mother may have Congestive Heart Failure. From that time till May 1st I was taking care and living with my grandmother. I say till then, because on that day she died.

Both of these women gave me my views on Feminism, and is the reason I disagree with most of these views I see here on Sinfest. Maybe I'm just being extra defensive about these views because of this.

i am sorry for your loss, and (especially at such a time) i can see that you might perhaps hold more strongly to the opinions these women had. but you do understand - your mother's and grandmother's opinions on feminism were probably formed years ago, and they might actually be wrong now. it never hurts to rethink things (starting from what you were taught).

i think the problem people have is that you show no willingness to rethink what you have been told about feminism. you specifically said that you never go to feminist sites because you aren't a feminist - and then you can't understand why people jump on you. this is like saying you never go to physics websites because you aren't a physicist, but you expect to be taken seriously in a discussion about physics, and you can't understand why people _don't_ show you respect. they don't show you respect because you aren't showing them respect. when you _have_ shown respect, and actually considered the evidence (like on torture), you have also learned something. so showing feminism (and feminists) the respect they deserve by reading up on the current state of feminism and the specific areas of concern feminists have is also likely to get you more respect - as well as making your arguments (if you still have them) better._________________aka: neverscared!

and i just have to say, i am so pissed i didn't get here before arthain stomped off mad. seriously, you guys didn't even _touch_ on the flaws in his evolutionary argument, nor his assertion that men still get women by stereotypically neanderthal methods. and i won't even start on the all the challenges there are in the world today that can be character-building without the least necessity for violence.

although i will grant you, he offered such a wealth of targets, it is hard to get them all._________________aka: neverscared!

As for violence... well violence is required unfortunately. In the old days it was required to secure a mate, hunt for food, secure your position in society.

In today's society it's changed more to a form of control. Violence, or at least the threat of violence, is usually what keeps most nations and armed forces in control the world over. It's also exists in every aspect of the animal kingdom. All you need to do is look outside and see birds chase each other away from potential mates to see a perfect example of how violence is so pervasive in nature as well. There are too many examples to list them all and I'd need to write an essay for me to properly articulate what I'm trying to say. Just look at the animal kingdom and you'll see violence is their way of life. We may believe we're above them, but we share many of their traits, they've just been adapted to our way of life.

You mean this?

It's painful to read. All the "animals do the same so why shouldn't we" arguments imply that humans are all uncontrollable, and are just acting on impulses without a sense of morality of any kind.

It reminds me of all the arguments that "men had to hunt and women were collecting fruit and tending the kids 10000 years ago and this influences our current state of society" nonsense. It's just as unfounded and just as stupid.

As for violence... well violence is required unfortunately. In the old days it was required to secure a mate, hunt for food, secure your position in society.

In today's society it's changed more to a form of control. Violence, or at least the threat of violence, is usually what keeps most nations and armed forces in control the world over. It's also exists in every aspect of the animal kingdom. All you need to do is look outside and see birds chase each other away from potential mates to see a perfect example of how violence is so pervasive in nature as well. There are too many examples to list them all and I'd need to write an essay for me to properly articulate what I'm trying to say. Just look at the animal kingdom and you'll see violence is their way of life. We may believe we're above them, but we share many of their traits, they've just been adapted to our way of life.

You mean this?

It's painful to read. All the "animals do the same so why shouldn't we" arguments imply that humans are all uncontrollable, and are just acting on impulses without a sense of morality of any kind.

It reminds me of all the arguments that "men had to hunt and women were collecting fruit and tending the kids 10000 years ago and this influences our current state of society" nonsense. It's just as unfounded and just as stupid.

Would you like to hear my hypothesis on why evolutionary psychology supports a woman's want for an abortion/birth control?

What people forget is that, if you're going to say evolution inspires our behavior, that means it inspires all of our behavior, including our desire for peace/equality/etc. It's a half-thought argument._________________Men and patriarchy aren't interchangeable.

Would you like to hear my hypothesis on why evolutionary psychology supports a woman's want for an abortion/birth control?

That would very much make sense. I mean, on the purely evolution-oriented-mentality, the urge to be able to deal with unwanted pregnencies is logical. Keeps greater checking ability, over whether the traits that were "passed" are indeed desireable.
If you didn't mean this, feel free to give your own hypothesis.

Valerie wrote:

What people forget is that, if you're going to say evolution inspires our behavior, that means it inspires all of our behavior, including our desire for peace/equality/etc. It's a half-thought argument.

While this is obviously true (provided one deems that all behaviour is evolution-inspired) it all depends on what point they are trying to make.
If they say that violence is more "natural" than piece/equality, because it is more "in tune" with evolution, then they commited a fallacy, as you demonstrated.
If, on the other hand, they say that, because all behaviours are evolution-inspired, every behaviour (violent or peaceful) is every bit as valid as any other, then they aren't mistaken.

Again, if we take the premise that all behaviours are evolution-based.

Would you like to hear my hypothesis on why evolutionary psychology supports a woman's want for an abortion/birth control?

That would very much make sense. I mean, on the purely evolution-oriented-mentality, the urge to be able to deal with unwanted pregnencies is logical. Keeps greater checking ability, over whether the traits that were "passed" are indeed desireable.
If you didn't mean this, feel free to give your own hypothesis.

That's good, too. My feeling on it is that, since humans have such a long growth period, children take up a lot of resources. If you only have one or two children, you can afford to pump all of your resources into them and they'll turn out to be profitable (in evolutionary terms; they're more likely to survive long enough to have children of their own, thus prolonging copies of your genes). And when you pair this with the fact that 61% of women who have abortions are already mothers...

Geareye wrote:

Valerie wrote:

What people forget is that, if you're going to say evolution inspires our behavior, that means it inspires all of our behavior, including our desire for peace/equality/etc. It's a half-thought argument.

While this is obviously true (provided one deems that all behaviour is evolution-inspired) it all depends on what point they are trying to make.
If they say that violence is more "natural" than piece/equality, because it is more "in tune" with evolution, then they commited a fallacy, as you demonstrated.
If, on the other hand, they say that, because all behaviours are evolution-inspired, every behaviour (violent or peaceful) is every bit as valid as any other, then they aren't mistaken.

Again, if we take the premise that all behaviours are evolution-based.[/i]

The issue here is the word "valid." "Valid" doesn't mean "a good idea." It's perfectly valid to commit suicide; people do it all the time. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, even though it's often evolutionarily sound.

(I know it sounds weird that evolution can "favor" suicide. Suicidal people are often already of child-bearing age, and many of them have had children. The reasons for suicide may vary, but one thing that seems to almost always be intact is the suicidal person's feeling that he/she is causing trouble for others-- particularly their families. If, indeed, the person is making things harder on their children, that makes the children less likely to eventually reproduce for various reasons. So, if the person weren't there anymore, there's a chance that the children will be able to have their own lives and children of their own.)

(But seriously, suicide is a terrible idea. I don't care if your kids have kids or not, don't do it, you'll make them sad if you do.)_________________Men and patriarchy aren't interchangeable.

It's painful to read. All the "animals do the same so why shouldn't we" arguments imply that humans are all uncontrollable, and are just acting on impulses without a sense of morality of any kind.

yes. and also, demonstrably false. a lot of animals have evolved mechanisms specifically to _avoid_ violence when e.g. competing for mates. and then there are all the critters where _females_ do the mate selection, so battling among males is pointless.

but it's so tedious to find out actual facts when you argue._________________aka: neverscared!